DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 5-15 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited art Choi (KR 20060027207) does not teach a means for emitting violet light in the visible light range (see page 6 of Applicant’s arguments dated 10/24/2025).
This is not found persuasive because claim 1 does not recite a floor care device comprising "at least one light source for emitting light in a violet portion of the visual spectrum" as recited by the floor care device of claim 5; therefore, this limitation is not a shared technical feature. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the technical feature described in the restriction dated 08/28/2025 was "a floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode with at least one part that is susceptible to contamination" which does not make a contribution over Choi.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The status identifier for claim 5 indicates the claim is “Withdrawn” when it was in the grouping in the response to restriction and has been examined on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part” in claim 14 and a “contamination detector for detecting contamination” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the rotation unit is understood to be a motor for rotating a fan or a brush bar (page 4, para 4) and the contamination detector is understood to be an optical sensor and equivalents (page 5, para 1).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the term “about 405 nm” in lines 2-3, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the range of values that would be consistent with the scope of the claimed range of “about 405 nm,” as the violet spectrum of visible light is generally understood to be 380-450 nm. Further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A) in view of Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Oinuma teaches a floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode and a park mode (abstract), the floor care device comprising:
- at least one part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode (Fig. 3, dust collection portion 32, page 2, para 4),
- at least one light source for emitting ultraviolet light (Fig.3, ultraviolet lamp 34), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one part when emitting the light (page 2, para 4), and
- a floor care controller, operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to detect a transition of the floor care device to the park mode and, in response thereto, to execute a decontamination program, the decontamination program including using the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part for the decontamination thereof (control means 37 connecting to setting button 22, UV lamps 34, and detection sensor 35, to detect and control operation mode of vacuum cleaner, and actuate UV light after a “stop” operation = understood to be a “park mode,” page 3, para 1-6). However, Oinuma does not teach wherein the at least one light source is configured to emit light in in a violet portion of the visual spectrum.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with utilize multiple wavelengths of light to inactivate microorganisms within the vacuum cleaner, motivating one to turn towards Rodriguez. Rodriguez teaches a plurality of LED light sources (Fig. 1, 19, 21) for the deactivation of bacteria (abstract) including violet light within the 380-450 nm wavelength range because it is less harmful to humans than ultraviolet light but is still effective for disinfection [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaner as taught by Oinuma to include the violet light source as taught by Rodriguez to simultaneously sterilize the dust collecting unit of the vacuum while preventing harm to users and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G) and 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one light source is configured for emitting light with a wavelength of about 405 nm (Rodriguez, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one part is an air filter, a dust bin, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin (Oinuma, dust collecting unit 32 is a dust bin, page 2, para 6).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, further comprising at least a second part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode, and wherein the at least one part (Oinuma, Fig. 3, dust collecting unit 32) is arranged between the at least one light source (Oinuma, Fig. 1, ultraviolet light 34) and the second part (Oinuma, Fig. 1, detection sensor 35 arranged between dust collecting unit 32 and ultraviolet light 34, page 2, para 6) and configured to guide the light emitted by the light source towards the second part (Oinuma, page 4, para 5).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one part is a dust bin (Oinuma, Fig. 3, dust collecting unit 32).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, further comprising a contamination detector for detecting contamination on a contaminated portion of the at least one part (Oinuma, Fig. 1, detection sensor 35 configured to determine contamination level of dust collection unit, page 4, para 6) and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion (Oinuma, contamination data used to effectively sterilize dust collection unit, page 5, para 4-5; page 6, para 2).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A) in view of Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Yang et. al (US 20180178823 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one part susceptible to contamination is a dust collection bin (Fig. 3, dust collection portion 32, page 2, para 4), but does not teach wherein the at least one part comprises a user contact area, specifically designed for being contacted by a user during normal use of the floor care device.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with sterilizing the user contact area of the vacuum cleaner such as the handle since high touch surfaces are where bacteria could propagate, motivating one to turn towards Yang et al. Yang teaches a sterilization mechanism for a shopping cart handle (abstract) wherein the handle portion (Fig. 2, 214), fashioned from a luminous material [0021], has a plurality of UV LED sources (222) configured to sterilize the handle [0031] when a sensor (122) detects the cart is not in use to prevent user harm [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaner handle as taught by Modified Oinuma with the luminous material, UV LEDs, and user sensor as taught by Yang to effectively sterilize the vacuum cleaner handle when not in use to prevent the growth of microorganisms on the high touch surface and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding the limitation “specifically designed for being contacted by a user during normal use of the floor care device,” the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, the limitation is considered to be an intended use of the apparatus and will not be given patentable weight. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art has been applied. See rejection above.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5 wherein the at least one part susceptible to contamination is a dust collection bin (Fig. 3, dust collection portion 32, page 2, para 4), but does not teach wherein the at least one part is a handle for holding the floor care device during use in the floor care mode.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with sterilizing the handle of the vacuum cleaner since it is a high touch surface wherein bacteria could propagate, motivating one to turn towards Yang et al. Yang teaches a sterilization mechanism for a shopping cart handle (abstract) wherein the handle portion (Fig. 2, 214), fashioned from a luminous material [0021], has a plurality of UV LED sources (222) configured to sterilize the handle [0031] when a sensor (122) detects the cart is not in use to prevent user harm [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaner handle as taught by Modified Oinuma with the luminous material, UV LEDs, and user sensor as taught by Yang to effectively sterilize the vacuum cleaner handle when not in use to prevent the growth of microorganisms on the high touch surface and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, including a display (Oinuma, Fig. 3, 36) and a setting button (Oinuma, Fig. 3, 22) but does not teach wherein the at least one part susceptible to contamination is a button, a knob, a lever or a touch screen provided for user interaction with the floor care device.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with sterilizing the setting of the vacuum cleaner since it is a high touch surface wherein bacteria could propagate, motivating one to turn towards Yang et al. Yang teaches a sterilization mechanism for a shopping cart handle (abstract) wherein the handle portion (Fig. 2, 214), fashioned from a luminous material [0021], has a plurality of UV LED sources (222) configured to sterilize the handle [0031] when a sensor (122) detects the cart is not in use to prevent user harm [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the setting button as taught by Modified Oinuma with the luminous material, UV LEDs, and user sensor as taught by Yang to effectively sterilize the vacuum cleaner handle when not in use to prevent the growth of microorganisms on the high touch surface and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A) in view of Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Marakov (US 20070067943 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the at least one part is a dust bin (Oinuma, Fig. 3, dust collecting unit 32) configured to be sterilized by the at least one light source (Oinuma, Fig. 1, ultraviolet light 34). Oinuma further teaches a filter configured to collect further fine dust and cool an electric blower but does not teach wherein the second part is an air filter, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin, wherein the filter is arranged between the dust collecting unit and the light source.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with bacterial growth occurring in said filter and seek to sterilize it, motivating one to turn towards Marakov. Marakov teaches a vacuum cleaner (abstract) with a dirt container (Fig. 2, 50, [0067]) with a plurality of filters contained therein (Fig. 8, 270), and a UV light source (Fig. 8, 280) configured to sterilize said filters with UV radiation ([0050-0053], [0064]) and prevent the propagation of microorganisms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaner as taught by Modified Oinuma to include the plurality of filters upstream and downstream of the UV light source to improve the purification of the air flowing through the vacuum cleaner and prevent the propagation of microorganism growth and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A) in view of Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Chen (CN 111648980 A).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Oinuma teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one part is a rotatable part, further comprising a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part (Oinuma, Fig. 1 blower 31 understood to be a rotatable part with a rotation unit; light source is activated after blower is stopped page 3, 4-5), but does not teach wherein the decontamination program further comprises illuminating the rotatable part during and/or after rotating the rotatable part.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the blower becoming contaminated by impure air flowing through the floor care device, motivating one to turn towards Chen. Chen teaches an internal sterilizing fan (abstract, Fig. 1, 1)) comprising a centrifugal fan with a shell (Fig. 2, 11), an impeller (Fig. 1, 14), an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 2, 16), and a photocatalytic net (Fig. 2, 15) positioned within the shell and configured to be irradiated by the ultraviolet lamp (page 4, para 3-4). The irradiation of the photocatalytic net inside the centrifugal fan can inactivate bacteria within the fan and assist in air sterilization (page 5, para 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower as taught by Modified Oinuma with the photocatalytic net and ultraviolet lamp as taught by Chen to prevent the buildup of bacteria within the blower and increase the efficiency of sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758